Chemical Free Living – Kindred Mediahttp://kindredmedia.org
Sharing the New Story of Childhood, Parenthood, and the Human FamilyTue, 28 Nov 2017 00:08:31 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1Why Capitalism Makes Us Sick – Video With Gabor Maté, MDhttp://kindredmedia.org/2017/10/capitalism-makes-us-sick-video-gabor-mate/
http://kindredmedia.org/2017/10/capitalism-makes-us-sick-video-gabor-mate/#respondFri, 13 Oct 2017 15:27:18 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=20742Gabor Maté is a Hungarian-born Canadian physician who specializes in the study and treatment of addiction and is also widely recognized for his perspective on Attention Deficit Disorder and his firmly held belief in the connection between mind and body health. He has authored four books exploring topics including attention deficit disorder, stress, developmental psychology […]

]]>
Gabor Maté is a Hungarian-born Canadian physician who specializes in the study and treatment of addiction and is also widely recognized for his perspective on Attention Deficit Disorder and his firmly held belief in the connection between mind and body health. He has authored four books exploring topics including attention deficit disorder, stress, developmental psychology and addiction. He is a regular columnist for the Vancouver Sun and the Globe and Mail.

On Capitalism, Addiction and Recovery

Rather than offering quick-fix solutions to these complex issues, Dr. Maté weaves together scientific research, case histories, and his own insights and experience to present a broad perspective that enlightens and empowers people to promote their own healing and that of those around them.

For twelve years Dr. Maté worked in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside with patients challenged by hard-core drug addiction, mental illness and HIV, including at Vancouver’s Supervised Injection Site. With over 20 years of family practice and palliative care experience and extensive knowledge of the latest findings of leading-edge research, Dr. Maté is a sought-after speaker and teacher, regularly addressing health professionals, educators, and lay audiences throughout North America.

Dr. Maté has received the Hubert Evans Prize for Literary Non-Fiction; an Honorary Degree (Law) from the University of Northern British Columbia; an Outstanding Alumnus Award from Simon Fraser University; and the 2012 Martin Luther King Humanitarian Award from Mothers Against Teen Violence. He is an adjunct professor in the Faculty of Criminology, Simon Fraser University.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2017/10/capitalism-makes-us-sick-video-gabor-mate/feed/0Normal Is Over – A New Documentary Filmhttp://kindredmedia.org/2017/07/normal-new-documentary-film/
http://kindredmedia.org/2017/07/normal-new-documentary-film/#respondSat, 29 Jul 2017 17:10:53 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=20513Normal Is Over The Movie (103)_ENG from ReneeScheltema on Vimeo. Award-winning feature documentary about humanity’s wisest responses to climate change, species extinction, resource depletion and the widening gap between the rich and poor. First film connecting the dots: A look at the financial and economical paradigm underlying our planetary problems, while offering various SOLUTIONS to […]

Award-winning feature documentary about humanity’s wisest responses to climate change, species extinction, resource depletion and the widening gap between the rich and poor.

Book a screening from anywhere in the world for your local community.

First film connecting the dots: A look at the financial and economical paradigm underlying our planetary problems, while offering various SOLUTIONS to reverse the path of global decline.

Normal Is Over is a compelling and visually rich film directed by award-winning and investigative journalist Renée

Her film chronicles the way humans have inadvertently imperiled our planet: species extinction, climate change, the depletion of critical natural resources, and industrial control of our food production.
This unique documentary examines how our economic and financial system connects these issues, and offers SOLUTIONS, which could be implemented immediately; from practical everyday fixes to rethinking the overarching myths of our time.

With an open mind Renée investigates the cause, and symptoms of our crisis while offering hope. She meets experts, and pioneers all over the world, trying to stave off global decline. They concentrate on matters such as ecological economics, organic agriculture, renewable energy, saving species, reducing our carbon footprints, and sustainable finance.

The film mixes accurate, relevant content with humor, and suggests ways how we can take positive practical action and change our lifestyles for future generations.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2017/07/normal-new-documentary-film/feed/0Drinking Diet Drinks During Pregnancy Linked To Child Obesityhttp://kindredmedia.org/2017/06/drinking-diet-drinks-pregnancy-linked-child-obesity/
http://kindredmedia.org/2017/06/drinking-diet-drinks-pregnancy-linked-child-obesity/#respondTue, 06 Jun 2017 22:17:14 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=20415Children born to women who had gestational diabetes and drank at least one artificially sweetened beverage per day during pregnancy were more likely to be overweight or obese at age 7, compared to children born to women who had gestational diabetes and drank water instead of artificially sweetened beverages, according to a study led by […]

]]>Children born to women who had gestational diabetes and drank at least one artificially sweetened beverage per day during pregnancy were more likely to be overweight or obese at age 7, compared to children born to women who had gestational diabetes and drank water instead of artificially sweetened beverages, according to a study led by researchers at the National Institutes of Health. Childhood obesity is known to increase the risk for certain health problems later in life, such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke and some cancers. The study appears online in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

According to the study authors, as the volume of amniotic fluid increases, pregnant women tend to increase their consumption of fluids. To avoid extra calories, many pregnant women replace sugar-sweetened soft drinks and juices with beverages containing artificial sweeteners. Citing prior research implicating artificially sweetened beverages in weight gain, the study authors sought to determine if diet beverage consumption during pregnancy could influence the weight of children.

“Our findings suggest that artificially sweetened beverages during pregnancy are not likely to be any better at reducing the risk for later childhood obesity than sugar-sweetened beverages,” said the study’s senior author, Cuilin Zhang, Ph.D., in the Epidemiology Branch at NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). “Not surprisingly, we also observed that children born to women who drank water instead of sweetened beverages were less likely to be obese by age 7.”

The researchers analyzed data collected from 1996 to 2002 by the Danish National Birth Cohort, a long-term study of pregnancies among more than 91,000 women in Denmark. At the 25th week of pregnancy, the women completed a detailed questionnaire on the foods they ate. The study also collected data on the children’s weight at birth and at 7 years old.

In the current study, the NICHD team limited their analysis to data from more than 900 pregnancies that were complicated by gestational diabetes, a type of diabetes that occurs only during pregnancy.

Approximately 9 percent of these women reported consuming at least one artificially sweetened beverage each day. Their children were 60 percent more likely to have a high birth weight, compared to children born to women who never drank sweetened beverages. At age 7, children born to mothers who drank an artificially sweetened beverage daily were nearly twice as likely to be overweight or obese.

Consuming a daily artificially sweetened beverage appeared to offer no advantages over consuming a daily sugar-sweetened beverage. At age 7, children born to both groups were equally likely to be overweight or obese. However, women who substituted water for sweetened beverages reduced their children’s obesity risk at age 7 by 17 percent.

It is not well understood why drinking artificially sweetened beverages compared to drinking water may increase obesity risk. The authors cited an animal study that associated weight gain with changes in the types of bacteria and other microbes in the digestive tract. Another animal study suggested that artificial sweeteners may increase the ability of the intestines to absorb the blood sugar glucose. Other researchers found evidence in rodents that, by stimulating taste receptors, artificial sweeteners desensitized the animals’ digestive tracts, so that they felt less full after they ate and were more likely to overeat.

The authors caution that more research is necessary to confirm and expand on their current findings. Although they could account for many other factors that might influence children’s weight gain, such as breastfeeding, diet and physical activity levels, their study couldn’t definitively prove that maternal artificially sweetened beverage consumption caused the children to gain weight. The authors mention specifically the need for studies that use more contemporary data, given recent upward trends in the consumption of artificially sweetened beverages. They also call for additional investigation on the effects of drinking artificially sweetened beverages among high-risk racial/ethnic groups.

About the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD): NICHD conducts and supports research in the United States and throughout the world on fetal, infant and child development; maternal, child and family health; reproductive biology and population issues; and medical rehabilitation. For more information, visit NICHD’s website.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2017/06/drinking-diet-drinks-pregnancy-linked-child-obesity/feed/0May Is Food Allergy Month – Get the Facts On Food Allergies And Share The Datahttp://kindredmedia.org/2017/05/may-food-allergy-month-get-facts-food-allergies-share-data/
http://kindredmedia.org/2017/05/may-food-allergy-month-get-facts-food-allergies-share-data/#respondMon, 08 May 2017 16:38:25 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=20169May is Food Allergy Awareness Month. As millions of families raise awareness of this life-threatening condition, you also have to pause and reflect on the fact that so few of us knew anyone with a food allergy when we were kids. I didn’t, so eleven years ago, when a plate of scrambled eggs changed my […]

]]>May is Food Allergy Awareness Month. As millions of families raise awareness of this life-threatening condition, you also have to pause and reflect on the fact that so few of us knew anyone with a food allergy when we were kids.

I didn’t, so eleven years ago, when a plate of scrambled eggs changed my life, I was totally unaware.

That morning, I thought nothing about the blue yogurt I’d put out for breakfast for my four little kids or the plate of scrambled eggs.

Not until our youngest started to fuss. I thought she was tired, so I put her down for a nap. For some reason, which I still can not explain, I went to check on her, and her face was swollen shut. I raced her to the emergency room.

“This looks like an allergic reaction,” the pediatrician said. “What did you feed the kids for breakfast?” And she started rattling off data on food allergies. The condition now impacts 1 in 13 kids, 2 kids in every classroom. A life threatening allergic reaction sends someone to the emergency room in the U.S. once every three minutes. My heart raced as I watched my baby struggle to breathe, and as we got her under control, I wanted to understand what was happening: why do so many American children now have food allergies?

Nothing could have prepared me for what I would uncover.

Before having kids, I worked in the world of finance. I’d been an equity analyst on a team that managed $20 billion in assets. I was the only woman on the team, and I covered the food industry. I understood why the food industry had removed real ingredients from their products and replaced them with fake ones: it drove margins and profitability.

But I’d never thought to ask what all of this was doing to the health of our families.

From 1997-2007, the rate of hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions increased 265%, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Today, the auto-injector device, EpiPen, is now a $1+ billion brand, and its manufacturer, Mylan, has profited enormously from the condition. They have hiked the price of the drug over 500% in the U.S. market to over $600. It sells for about $100 in other countries. In the fall of 2016, families came together to demand action in what is now known as #epigate. Congressional hearings occurred, but families are still struggling to afford the device, even as Mylan initiated a global recall.

If the food allergy community were a state, it would be the 5th largest state in the U.S. by population – right after California, Texas, New York and Florida.

The number of people with food allergies in the U.S. is greater than the entire populations of New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago combined.

The number of people with peanut allergy in the United States more than quadrupled since 1997. And it isn’t just peanuts, milk, soy, corn and other allergies are all increasing at record rates. Genetics don’t change this quickly, so what has?

Researchers reporting in the Journal of the American Medical Association states that the costs of food allergies, from medical care to food to pharmaceuticals is $4,184 per child per year, costing our economy $25 billion, including lost productivity.

To discount this condition in any way is irresponsible.

Thankfully, not everyone is.

Mondelez, formerly known as Kraft, recently acquired Enjoy Life Foods, a well-loved brand in the allergy space.

The plan is to grow it into a billion dollar brand. The company is free from genetically engineered ingredients, allergens and artificial additives.

In the United States, we are quickly learning that our food supply contains a lot of ingredients that simply did not exist when we were kids – from artificial food dyes and artificial growth hormones, to excess levels of pesticides now used on genetically engineered foods (GMOs). But it isn’t like this in other countries, and our own American corporations don’t use these ingredients in the products they sell overseas.

That double standard is tough to swallow.

So are we allergic to food or are we allergic to what’s been done to it in America?

With no labels on things like GMOs in the U.S., the biotech industry is able to claim that there is not a single documented case of these foods ever causing harm. There is no evidence without labels, because there is no traceability – there is just the escalating rates of allergic diseases in our families.

Correlation is not causation, but as a growing number of consumers opt out of these artificial and genetically engineered ingredients, companies are, too. Target, Costco, Chipotle, Kroger, General Mills and Cheerios have responded to this demand for “free-from” food and are producing more foods free-from allergens, artificial dyes, GMOs and artificial ingredients.

It can’t happen fast enough.

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association says that living in the United States increases your risk of allergic disease “significantly.”

“Children born outside the United States had significantly lower prevalence of any allergic diseases (20.3%) than those born in the United States (34.5%),” said the study led by Jonathan Silverberg of St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York.

According to Reuters and Dr. Ruchi Gupta, who studies allergies at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, “Food allergies have increased tremendously,” she told Reuters Health. “We do see people who come from other countries don’t tend to have it.”

So are we allergic to food or to what’s been done to it in America? Especially as other countries take precautions that we haven’t and keep things like GMOs out?

The skyrocketing number of American dealing with food allergies should serve as an alarm to rethink our food.

Food allergies are not a “niche” just as cancer is not a fad.

It’s time to #rethinkfood. The future of our country, our military and our economy depends on it.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2017/05/may-food-allergy-month-get-facts-food-allergies-share-data/feed/0How The Microbiome Destroyed The Ego, Vaccine Policy And Patriarchyhttp://kindredmedia.org/2015/11/how-the-microbiome-destroyed-the-ego-vaccine-policy-and-patriarchy/
http://kindredmedia.org/2015/11/how-the-microbiome-destroyed-the-ego-vaccine-policy-and-patriarchy/#respondSun, 22 Nov 2015 19:49:02 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=17336The relatively recent discovery of the microbiome is not only completely redefining what it means to be human, to have a body, to live on this earth, but is overturning belief systems and institutions that have enjoyed global penetrance for centuries. A paradigm shift has occurred, so immense in implication, that the entire frame of […]

]]>The relatively recent discovery of the microbiome is not only completely redefining what it means to be human, to have a body, to live on this earth, but is overturning belief systems and institutions that have enjoyed global penetrance for centuries.

A paradigm shift has occurred, so immense in implication, that the entire frame of reference for our species’ self-definition, as well as how we relate fundamentally to concepts like “germs,” have been transformed beyond recognition. This shift is underway and yet, despite popular interest in our gut ecology, the true implications remain unacknowledged.

It started with the discovery of the microbiome, a deceptively diminutive term, referring to an unfathomably complex array of microscopic microorganisms together weighing only 3-4 lbs. in the average human, represents a Copernican revolution when it comes to forming the new center, genetically and epigenetically, of what it means in biological terms to be human.

Considering the sheer density of genetic information contained within these commensals, as well as their immense contribution towards sustaining basic functions like digestion, immunity, and brain function, the “microbiome” could just as well be relabeled the “macrobiome”; that is, if we are focusing on the size of its importance rather than physical dimensionality.

For instance, if you take away the trillions of viruses, bacteria and fungi that coexist with our human cells (the so-called holobiont), only 1% of the genetic material that keeps us ticking, and has for hundreds of millions of years, remains. One percent isn’t that much for the ego to work with, especially considering it now has to thank what were formerly believed to be mostly “infectious agents” for the fact that it exists. Even more perplexing, the remaining 1% of our contributed DNA to the collective gene pool of the holobiont is at least 8% retroviral (yes, the same category as HIV) in origin!

Us Against Them?

Once the object of modern medicine’s fundamental responsibility – the human body – is redefined and/or perceived with greater veracity, and “germs” become less other and more self, a challenge for germ theory which seeks to differentiate between the “good” germs we are versus the “bad” ones out there that we must fight with antibiotics and vaccines.

As many readers are already poignantly aware, today’s political climate and agenda is unilaterally pro-vaccination on both sides of the aisle (conveniently funded by the same industry lobbyists), with a tidal wave of bills across the U.S. set to eliminate exemptions against mandatory vaccination. The rationale, of course, is that deadly germs can only be prevented from killing the presumably germ-free host through injecting dead, weakened or genetically modified germ components to “prevent” theoretical future exposures and infection. This concept is of course intellectually infantile, and if you do some investigating you’ll find it was never quite grounded in compelling evidence or science.

But the intellectual implications of the microbiome go even deeper than undermining germ theory, vaccine policy, and the culture of medical monotheism that upholds these constructs…

Maternal Origins of Health and Ultimately our Species Identity

Deep within the substratum of humanity’s largely unquestioned assumptions of what it means to be human, the microbiome has also fundamentally displaced a latent patriarchal prejudice concerning the relative importance and contribution of the man and woman towards the health and ultimately the continuation of our species.

It has been known for some time that only women pass down mitochondrial DNA, already tipping the scales in favor of her dominant position in contributing genetic information (the seat of our humanity or species identity, no?) to offspring. The microbiome, however, changes everything in favor of amplifying this asymmetry of hereditary influence. Since we are all designed to gestate in the womb and come through the birth canal, and since the neonate’s microbiome is therein derived and established thereof, it follows that most of our genetic information as holobionts is maternal in origin. Even when the original colonization eventually changes and is displaced through environmentally-acquired microbial strains as the infant, child, adolescent, and then adult, develops, the original terrain and subsequent trajectory of changes was established through the mother (unless of course we were C-sectioned into the world).

Put in simpler terms: if 99% of what it means to be human is microbiome-based, and if the mother contributes most, if not all, of the original starting material, or at least the baseline and trajectory of future changes in the inner terrain, then her contribution becomes vastly more important than that of the father.

Moreover, the conditions surrounding gestation (important because of maternal-to-fetal microbiome trafficking in utero), her general health, and the way in which she gives birth (home, birth center, or hospital) now take on vastly greater importance than previously imagined. In other words, being born in a hospital via C-section and vaccination, will produce, genetically and epigenetically, a human that is so different – qualitatively – from one born at home, naturally, that they could almost be classified as different species, despite sharing nearly identical eukaryotic DNA (remember, only 1% of the holobiont’s total).

Given this perspective, obstetric interventions are the archetypal expression of a male-dominated paradigm that seeks to manage a woman’s birth experience with largely unacknowledged consequences for the health of our species. Protecting health and preventing disease has now been traced back to the origins of the microbiome, best expressed through natural birth in the home, which has been estimated to be as much as 1,000 times safer than a hospital birth despite propaganda to the contrary.

In light of the new, microbiome-based view, the male role in protecting the health of women and children will be irrevocably downgraded in importance, not just professionally and medically, but biologically. First, it is interesting to look at the ancient roots of the biology-based psychospiritual disparities that exist between men and women, and which still influence today’s practice of medicine.

It would appear that men have from the beginning of time envied the creative role of women in conception, pregnancy, birth and caretaking. Erich Fromm also described the pyschospiritual implications for men of this biologically-based existential disparity in terms of the phenomena of womb-envy, exemplified by the biblical passage where God takes a rib from Adam to “create” Eve – an obvious reversal of the natural order of things, reflecting the inherent impotence men feel knowing their creative potency is secondary importance. It has been said, rightly, that the most powerful thing in the universe is to create life (is this not why we attribute this to “God”), and the second most powerful thing to take it. It is no coincidence that history, since it’s inception as recorded, is largely a documentation of the history of wars, of men “creating meaning” by killing men, and establishing symbol systems intended to capture by proxy the creative power latent within every woman’s body and experience. And so, 10,000 years later, the world ruled by monotheistic, male-principled religious and cultural systems, both in secular and religious form, it seems that the facts of our biology are now intervening to shake up these largely subconscious belief systems in favor of an ancient truth: women are superior to men, fundamentally. (Though it is not a type of superiority to be used against the “weaker sex”: men, rather but to denote a higher responsibility, and perhaps greater need to be supported by men to get the job done, together, as inscribed in the natural order of things and its inherent design.)

The birth process, also, has been described as the closest thing to death without dying (it is ironic that anesthesiology, which could also be described in the same way, makes obstetrical interventions like C-section and epidural possible, at the same moment that it negates the spiritual experience of natural birth/women’s empowerment we are describing), offering women a window into the ‘in between’ and a direct experience of Source that men, less likely to experience it naturally would later emulate and access through the various technologies of shamanism.

Clearly, protecting the microbiome is of utmost importance if we are making the health of our future generations a priority. Indeed, ensuring the health of our offspring is perhaps the most fundamental evolutionary imperative we have. How do we accomplish this? What is the microbiome but ultimately a selective array of commensal microorganisms that ultimately originated from the environment: in the air we breath, the soil we interact with, and the water and food, of course, we ingest. This means we can’t simply live in a hermetically sealed bubble of shopping for organic, non-GMO certified foods at Whole Foods, while the entire planet continues to go to post-industrial hell in a hand basket. Our responsibility becomes distributed across everything in the world, and every impactful choice then becomes relevant to the fundamental issue and imperative at hand. With the microbial biodiversity in Big Ag, GM-based agricultural zones fire-bombed with biocides, by the very same corporations that either own or distribute the “organic brands” we all love to think will save our bodies, if not the planet, we need to step deeper into our activism by stepping out of the diversions and palliative measures that don’t result in lasting change.

When we work with the natural world, when we honor and acknowledge what is unknown about the complex web that we all share, we will bring back a vital health that now seems so far out of reach. When we engage technologies positioned in the war against germs and organisms, however, we are doomed to fail and to cripple not only our species but our home.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2015/11/how-the-microbiome-destroyed-the-ego-vaccine-policy-and-patriarchy/feed/0Unacceptable Levels: New Documentary About Your Body’s Chemical Burdenhttp://kindredmedia.org/2015/08/unacceptable-levels-new-documentary-about-your-bodys-chemical-burden/
http://kindredmedia.org/2015/08/unacceptable-levels-new-documentary-about-your-bodys-chemical-burden/#respondMon, 24 Aug 2015 18:30:48 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=16756Unacceptable Levels from TDC Entertainment on Vimeo. Read more on chemical-free family wellness on Kindred. Unacceptable Levels examines the results of the chemical revolution of the 1940s through the eyes of affable filmmaker Ed Brown, a father seeking to understand the world in which he and his wife are raising their children. To create this […]

Unacceptable Levels examines the results of the chemical revolution of the 1940s through the eyes of affable filmmaker Ed Brown, a father seeking to understand the world in which he and his wife are raising their children. To create this debut documentary, one man and his camera traveled extensively to find and interview top minds in the fields of science, advocacy, and law. Weaving their testimonies into a compelling narrative, Brown presents us with the story of how the chemical revolution brought us to where we are, and of where, if we’re not vigilant, it may take us.

Over 80,000 chemicals flow through our system of commerce, and many are going straight into our bodies. Even our unborn children are affected. Due to this constant exposure, we have approximately 200 synthetic industrial chemicals interacting with our cells every single day. Until recently, modern science really didn’t understand what that could mean for all of us in the long run, but that is changing.

Globally, disease rates are on the rise. Theories about the causes abound, yet the issues are complex and often muddied by the maneuvering of political and corporate interests. To explore different facets of common chemical exposure, Unacceptable Levels, was made in consultation with experts in multiple fields and is guided by a father on a personal journey as he attempts to bring these issues to light for everyone. Its primary goal? To determine whether we can prevent disease before it strikes us.

Unacceptable Levels opens the door to conversations about the chemical burden our bodies carry so that we can make informed decisions now and in the future. The film poses challenges to our companies, our government, and our society to do something about a nearly-unseen threat with the inspired knowledge that small changes can generate a massive impact.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2015/08/unacceptable-levels-new-documentary-about-your-bodys-chemical-burden/feed/0Are You Feeding A Brain Toxin To Your Babies?http://kindredmedia.org/2015/07/are-you-feeding-a-brain-toxin-to-your-babies/
http://kindredmedia.org/2015/07/are-you-feeding-a-brain-toxin-to-your-babies/#respondThu, 09 Jul 2015 20:34:47 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=16698The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) launched a nationwide billboard and poster campaign warning parents that fluoride, served to over 270 million Americans in their tap water, and often mixed with infant formula, is classified as a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity” by the EPA. The billboards ask, “Do you really want your child […]

]]>The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) launched a nationwide billboard and poster campaign warning parents that fluoride, served to over 270 million Americans in their tap water, and often mixed with infant formula, is classified as a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity” by the EPA.

The billboards ask, “Do you really want your child to drink a neurotoxic chemical?” and urge citizens to “stop artificial water fluoridation,” and to get more information from FAN’s science-based website FluorideACTION.net. The first billboards are in Fircrest and Tacoma, Washington, as campaigners around the country prepare to follow suit.

Fluoride chemicals are added to public water supplies in a futile attempt to reduce tooth decay. Even fluoridation promoters now admit that, if fluoride works at all, it works topically. So, there is no need to swallow it.

Fluoride was recently classified by leading scientists Philip Landrigan and Philippe Grandjean as a developmental neurotoxin in theMarch 2014 journal Lancet Neurology, and research now shows that fluoride can damage the fetal brain, adversely affect newborn babies’ behavior, damage the central nervous system of fluoride-exposed workers, and affect performance on neurological assessment tests. Forty-four human studies now show fluoride reduces IQ; 17 at levels the US EPA claims are safe. Over 100 animal studies show fluoride can directly damage the brain; with another 30 animal studies showing fluoride impairs learning or memory — including four published in 2014.

“Unfortunately, fluoridation promotion is not science-based but is politically motivated. While it’s important to avoid fluoridated water especially for infants, it’s imperative that parents contact legislators and tell them to stop adding unnecessary fluoride chemicals into the public’s water supply,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride.

Besides being unaware of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, most parents are not informed that routinely mixing infant formula with fluoridated water increases babies’ risk of dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) without any benefit. Bottle-fed infants in fluoridated communities get about 200 times more fluoride than breast-fed babies. The CDC reports that 41% of teenagers have dental fluorosis – a physical marker that too much fluoride was ingested while their teeth formed. Dental fluorosis is increasing. Black and Hispanic children have higher rates of fluorosis than White children.

“The last children that need to lose IQ points are children from low-income families, and yet they are precisely the children being especially targeted with fluoridation programs, largely because 80% of US dentists will not treat children on Medicaid,” says Connett .

“This is a classic case of good intentions going awry,” said Dr. William Hirzy, a former risk assessment specialist at the US EPA and FAN’s Washington, DC, representative.

John Mishko, a Fircrest chiropractor who helped to raise the money to rent six billboards in the area is heartened that local dentists who have done their homework are speaking out against fluoridation. Mishko says, “Together we have done everything we can think of to get our local and state officials to end this well-intentioned but outdated practice. But, as long as the majority of the public is unaware of the dangers involved – especially the threat to our children’s brains – we can make little progress. The media is not helping us to get the message to them – so we have been forced to use this method.”

Connett says, “If our government agencies (HHS, CDC, FDA and EPA), professional bodies (ADA, AMA, APHA etc) and the media were to do a professional job on this issue, the continuation of fluoridation would be unthinkable. Sadly, they are not. And the public is not being informed of the dangers posed by fluoridation. So FAN must do the job for them.”

The Fluoride Action Network is the leading educational and advocacy organization on issues of fluoride toxicity, and remains vigilant in monitoring government actions that threaten to impact the public’s exposure to fluoride.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2015/07/are-you-feeding-a-brain-toxin-to-your-babies/feed/0Eight “Ingredients” You Won’t Find Hidden In Organic Foodhttp://kindredmedia.org/2015/05/eight-ingredients-you-wont-find-hidden-in-organic-food/
http://kindredmedia.org/2015/05/eight-ingredients-you-wont-find-hidden-in-organic-food/#respondWed, 06 May 2015 19:58:19 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=16373Before speaking out about the current problems with our food system, I was working as a financial analyst that covered the food industry. My day to day consisted of meeting with management teams, taking factory and store tours and cranking out reports on companies like Kroger, Safeway, Costco and Whole Foods. I wasn’t a foodie, […]

]]>Before speaking out about the current problems with our food system, I was working as a financial analyst that covered the food industry. My day to day consisted of meeting with management teams, taking factory and store tours and cranking out reports on companies like Kroger, Safeway, Costco and Whole Foods. I wasn’t a foodie, and I couldn’t cook.

My job included crunching the numbers, learning business models and evaluating the costs of production and distribution of our food supply.

Thank goodness.

Because today, that experience has served a greater purpose: the ability to look at the current state of our food system, the financial engineering of the science behind it and the economically motivated decisions that food industry executives make to meet their fiduciary duty to drive shareholder return and sheds light on how these decision are affecting the health of our families.

And it’s becoming increasingly obvious that we’ve got a broken economic model at work in our food system. Taxpayer resources called subsidies are used to support growing crops in a chemically-intensive, genetically and financially engineered kind of way. It drives shareholder return for the companies that have developed these genetically engineered crops and the weedkillers, herbicides and insecticides used to treat them. While on the other hand, farmers that are growing crops organically, which means by law without the use of synthetic pesticides and genetically engineered seeds designed to require increasing doses of toxic weed killer, have to pay fees to prove that their crops are safe, then fees to label those crops with the “USDA Organic” seal and then they don’t receive the same crop insurance and marketing assistance programs that the other farmers do.

Add to that the fact that American companies formulate their products differently for eaters over seas, without the use of artificial colors, genetically engineered ingredients, high fructose corn syrup.

In the United States, we now have to use the adjective “organic” to label food that does not contain these artificial ingredients. Overseas, that food doesn’t need the adjective “organic.” Instead, the foods that are labeled are the genetically engineered ones, so that consumers can make an informed choice.

This can be tough to swallow. Our taxpayer dollars are hard at work growing a food system that is chemically-intensive, while farmers that are growing things without the use of these genetically engineered seeds and the portfolio of chemicals needed to grow them (things that even the President’s Cancer Panel has urged us to avoid) end up costing the consumer more to buy.

As consumers, we get hit twice: once, with our tax dollars subsidizing this chemically intensive agricultural system, and twice, by the price of organic food if we choose to opt out.

It’s a broken system we’ve inherited, but it doesn’t have to be that way going forward.

The health of our country is largely contingent on the health of our food supply, and while the biotech industry argues that a lot of these ingredients are perfectly safe (just as the tobacco industry claimed the same of their products to our grandmothers), U.S. food companies are removing them from their products in other countries (or not even introducing them in the first place). Chipotle is removing them from their products here.

This free-from food should be affordable to all Americans, not just those in certain zip codes or those who can afford organic.

Given that our American food companies make their products without artificial ingredients like GMOs overseas, isn’t it time that that they start doing the same thing here?

Our health is on the line, our economy, too. It’s time for American food companies to dump the junk: artificial dyes, artificial growth hormones and the other artificial ingredients now found in our food supply and to give Americans the same products that they they are serving overseas: products that are free-from these ingredients that have the potential to cause harm.

There is nothing more patriotic that they could be doing, and the time for them to do, for consumers and for shareholders, is now.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2015/05/eight-ingredients-you-wont-find-hidden-in-organic-food/feed/0ADHD-Linked Artificial Colors Fading Out Of Sitehttp://kindredmedia.org/2015/03/adhd-linked-artificial-colors-fading-out-of-site/
http://kindredmedia.org/2015/03/adhd-linked-artificial-colors-fading-out-of-site/#respondTue, 10 Mar 2015 19:49:16 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=16136The good news about artificial colors, tenth on our list of food additives to be avoided, is that they’re now showing signs of fading from the food scene. That became evident just last month when the country’s two best known makers of chocolate candy announced they were phasing such synthetic dyes out of their products. […]

]]>The good news about artificial colors, tenth on our list of food additives to be avoided, is that they’re now showing signs of fading from the food scene. That became evident just last month when the country’s two best known makers of chocolate candy announced they were phasing such synthetic dyes out of their products.
READ THIS BOOK NOW

First Nestlé USA announced its commitment to removing FDA-certified colors, like Red 40 and Yellow 5, as well as artificial flavors, from all of its confections. By the end of 2015, more than 250 products and 10 brands including such standard candy bar brands as Butterfinger, Crunch, Chunky, Raisinets, Goobers, Oh Henry and Baby Ruth candy bars. The products will begin appearing on store shelves by mid-2015. “We’re excited to be the first major U.S. candy manufacturer to make this commitment,” noted division president Dorren Ida.

Not to be outdone, Hershey’s came out a few days later with its own “clean-label initiative” that not only included a pledge to “transition existing products” to exclude not only artificial colors and flavors, but high fructose corn syrup (our number one additive to be avoided) as well.

Such movies have not only come in response to consumer pressure, but from an acknowledgment by the Food and Drug Administration that at least 96 percent of children aged 2-5 years are being exposed to at least four artificial colors in food products – FD&C Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6 and Blue 1. And that came six years after a petition was submitted to the FDA by the Center for Science in the Public Interest asking that nine such food colorings be banned — and that an interim warning label be posted on foods containing them that they “cause hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.” (The agency’s initial response to that and nearly 8,000 comments on the topic was to convene a Food Advisory Committee in 2011, which concluded there was not enough evidence to take regulatory action.)

But, as we reported here last September, research has increasingly demonstrated a connection between the consumption of synthetic food dyes and behavioral problems in kids. A few years ago, for example, studies were performed at Yale University’s Department of Pediatric Neurology to determine the effects of five common synthetic food dyes on baby rats. Only unlike experiments that have used excessive amounts of substances in question, these used the equivalent of the “real world” exposures our kids have to these dyes. And the results were alarming – the rats became hyperactive and showed diminished learning ability.

READ THIS BOOK NOW

Nor is this an effect that has been confined to lab rats. A couple years ago, a British study, published in The Lancet, which found that artificial food dyes increased hyperactivity in children, prompted the American Academy of Pediatricians to acknowledge a link between their consumption and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and to recommend parents try removing them from the diet of a child who suffers from the condition.

Or as we observed, the road to Ritalin could well be paved with all those FD&C’s you see listed among the ingredients of today’s processed food products. In fact, the link between food dyes (and certain other ingredients, as well as foods themselves) and behavioral problems in kids has been known for quite a while. It goes back to the 1970s when the late Dr. Benjamin Feingold, a California pediatrician and pioneer in the field of allergy and immunology, discovered the connection between what we eat and how it affects the way we feel and act. Since then, the Feingold Center he founded has helped scores of kids with hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder by eliminating certain additives from their diets – all without resorting to drugs such as Ritalin.

Of course, as in the case of other ingredients, European regulators have already beat us to the punch. Since 2010, they’ve required food products containing these unnatural hues to carry a warning label stating that consumption “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

But wait – there’s more!

And hyperactivity isn’t the only health problem that might be caused by these fake hues. Red dye No. 40, a petroleum derivative and the most commonly used artificial color, has been known to cause allergic reactions such as hives and swelling around the mouth, and is a suspected carcinogen. Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine) has been linked to chromosomal damage and may cause allergic reactions and migraines. Yellow No. 6 (sunset yellow), currently banned in Norway and Sweden, can cause gastrointestinal distress, swelling of the skin, nettle rash and migraines, and may also be carcinogenic. And Blue No. 1, or “brilliant blue,” which has been banned in France and Finland, may trigger asthma, low blood pressure, hives and other allergic reactions. (It also caused serious complications and death in hospital patients when used in feeding tube solutions several years ago.)

But then, as we also previously noted, the entire history of artificial colors has been colored by controversy. While they may make products appear more attractive, they represent just the kind of chemical additives we should delete from our diets – something that’s especially true for kids. But then, the fact that so many supposedly “harmless” coloring agents have been found to be otherwise is hardly surprising when you consider their origins and backgrounds. Many of the older dyes were made from coal tar – a thick, black liquid derived from, well, coal. (Now, does that sound like anything you’d like to ingest?) Some are still in use today, while many newer ones are petroleum extracts. They may also contain measurable amounts of toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury and arsenic.

Stay tuned for more updates on our top ten ingredients to be avoided (along with an extra one) in advance of our third annual Read Your Labels Day April 11.

]]>http://kindredmedia.org/2015/03/adhd-linked-artificial-colors-fading-out-of-site/feed/0Organic Trade Association Survey Shows More Families Than Ever Choosing Organichttp://kindredmedia.org/2015/03/organic-trade-association-survey-shows-more-families-than-ever-choosing-organic/
http://kindredmedia.org/2015/03/organic-trade-association-survey-shows-more-families-than-ever-choosing-organic/#respondThu, 05 Mar 2015 19:56:40 +0000http://kindredmedia.org/?p=16135Knowledge is power. The power to make informed decisions. According to a new survey by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) of families across the nation, today’s moms and dads know more about organic, and empowered with that knowledge, more parents are deciding to purchase organic than ever before. OTA’s U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes and Beliefs […]

]]>Knowledge is power. The power to make informed decisions. According to a new survey by the Organic Trade Association (OTA) of families across the nation, today’s moms and dads know more about organic, and empowered with that knowledge, more parents are deciding to purchase organic than ever before.
READ THIS BOOK NOW

OTA’s U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes and Beliefs 2015 Tracking Study, a survey of more than 1,200 households throughout the country with at least one child under 18, found that in the six years the poll has been conducted, familiarity and trust in the USDA Organic Seal – and general knowledge about organic – have increased in lockstep with the number of families who purchase organic products.

Today, nearly half of U.S. families (47 percent) are “very familiar” with the organic seal, representing a steady and significant increase of awareness from just 27 percent six years ago. Nearly seven in ten parents say they are extremely well informed or at least know “quite a bit” about organic. Trust in the organic label is at a high.

“Consumers have long been demanding to know more about how their food is grown and processed, whether it’s fresh produce, a box of crackers, or a jar of baby food,” said Laura Batcha, CEO and Executive Director for OTA. “The findings of this survey show that the more parents learn about the benefits of organic and the transparency of the certified organic system, the more they will choose organic for their families.”

Armed with their heightened knowledge and trust of organic, more households than ever before are choosing organic products. Over eight in ten (83 percent) U.S. families say they buy organic, up a full 10 points from the first year of the survey in 2009 and the highest level in the survey’s lifetime. While the proportion of families who purchase organic has steadily risen, the proportion of those who say they have never bought an organic product has just as steadily declined. When OTA began tracking households six years ago, almost 30 percent had never chosen organic; that group today is a mere 17 percent.

Not only are more families buying organic today, they are buying more organic foods in general than before. Just over half of all families surveyed said they have upped their purchases from a year ago, compared to only 30 percent in 2009 who reported an increase in organic purchases.

“The organic movement is thriving among U.S. families,” states the report.

READ THIS BOOK NOW

OTA’s Organic Industry Survey, which shows demand for organic food and non-food products booming, bears out these findings. OTA’s comprehensive look at the organic sector in 2014 has just gotten underway, but all indications are that U.S. organic sales hit a new record high in 2014. Sales in 2013 jumped 12 percent to $35.1 billion.

This was the sixth year OTA has partnered with KIWI Magazine to conduct the study. The primary objectives of the tracking study are to identify any changes in the degree to which families are incorporating organic into their lifestyle, parents’ knowledge about organic products and benefits, the importance and use of labels when shopping for and choosing organic products, and the household shopping budget and retail channel preferences.

The target audience consisted of more than 1,200 households, including a national online panel of U.S. households supplemented with KIWI Magazine’s Parents’ Advisory Board. All respondents had at least one child under the age of 18 in the household, and had sole or shared responsibility for household grocery purchases. The survey was conducted online January 16 – 23, 2015.

The full study will be available for purchase at OTA.com by mid-March. A significant discount is available for OTA members purchasing the study. For more information, contact Angela Jagiello at ajagiello@ota.com.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is the membership-based business association for organic agriculture and products in North America. OTA is the leading voice for the organic trade in the United States, representing over 7,000 organic businesses across 50 states. Its members include growers, shippers, processors, certifiers, farmers’ associations, distributors, importers, exporters, consultants, retailers and others. OTA’s Board of Directors is democratically elected by its members. OTA’s mission is to promote and protect the growth of organic trade to benefit the environment, farmers, the public and the economy.